text:
Can a Diesel Aircraft engine be run on Car Diesel?
What are the operational differences between normal diesel fuel used in cars and the Jet-A diesel type fuel used for some prop aircraft such as the Diamond DA62? I know that aircraft use Jet-A fuel, but could an airplane be run on car diesel?

According to this it seems like Jet-A is actually worse for diesels. The reason to use it is that it is already available at airports (in Europe more than in US).

related? https://aviation.stackexchange.com/q/12184/1467

@Federico not just related, already answered there too

I don't see that the supposed duplicate answers this question; it does lay out some of the characteristics of a few aviation fuels, but does not answer the question: can an aircraft diesel engine run on auto diesel instead of Jet-A? The answer to that is: it depends, but generally yes. I understand that the SMA diesel, for example, was largely designed to run on auto diesel, but the operators I have worked with use Jet-A due to availability and fuel quality.

@JonathanWalters I do not agree that the original version was mainly about running aircraft with diesel. With your edit I agree that it can be reopened.

@JonathanWalters I agree with Federico, your edit significantly changed the question which was asked.

In at least some cases, yes. Continental's CD-155 diesel engine will run on auto diesel, Jet A or any mixture of both:

The CD-155 is certified for the use of both jet fuel and diesel (DIN
  EN590) and is running with the two fuels in any mixture ratio.

EN590 is the European standard for auto diesel. The Gemini 125 engine can run on Jet A and diesel according to their website, as can the Austro AE300. So it seems that in general, aircraft diesel engines can indeed run on auto diesel.

Yes, and diesel cars can run on aviation jet fuel. Have heard delightful testimony of this from some owners of diesel cars who worked at an airport.
The Austro diesel engine in a Diamond aircraft is an adaptation of a Mercedes car diesel engine. Runs fine on both car diesel and jet A-1.

There is an airframe modification required (at least on the DA42) to use diesel, but I don't know the extent of it (it may be a simple placard swap).

Some more examples of (ultra-light) planes running on car diesel:

FlyEco developes a diesel engine (derived from the Mercedes-Benz Smart car), running on diesel and jet A-1.
The FlyEco engine was further incoperated with Siemens into a hybrid experimental plane, which unfortunately crashed.


text:
What is this aircraft that appeared at Oshkosh 2017?
This photo is an image from a youtube video of Oshkosh 2017.

Clearly, it's a stealth bomber. Good disguise.

If you took that image, you should add it to the wikipedia article linked below.  Their picture only has half of the plane in it.

That would be the Boeing YL-15 a scout plane of which only 12 were built.
Here is the EAA's article about the airplane from the airshow.

"Brunquist, paid $800 in February 1954 for the example now at AirVenture. The airframe had 400 hours total when the elder Brunquist acquired it." Wow. Granted, that's about $7,300 in today's dollars, but still. I wish airplanes with 400 frame hours were that cheap today...

source: Stack Exchange

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

sort: votes


text:
What is RTOW and how is it different from MTOW?
Please explain what is RTOW, and what is the difference between RTOW and MTOW. Is there a link between the RTOW and the Weight and Balance Manual?

What have you found so far? Related on PPRuNe: MTOW and RTOW

Related if not duplicate: What are different types of weights of an aircraft?

@Farhan I don't think that question mentions RTOW? This one does, but only indirectly and it doesn't give a definition.

@Pondlife Yes, you are right. I added it there too.

Google gives you the answer without even clicking any links:
https://www.google.com/search?q=RTOW

MTOW is a hard limit regardless of other considerations and is tied up
  with the basic aircraft certification basis.RTOW is the limiting
  takeoff weight calculated for a particular runway under particular
  specified conditions

Maximum Take Off Weight - The maximum weight in which an aircraft can ever take-off, under any circumstances.
Regulated Take Off Weight - The maximum weight in which an aircraft can take off from a particular runway under specific conditions (winds, weather, specific aircraft configuration, etc,). For example, runway 29 at KXYZ airport with ambient temp of 20° C. This can get as specific as you wish.
Of course $RTOW \le MTOW$.

In addition, there is no direct relation between the RTOW and the weight and balance manual (WBM), other than that limits specified in the WBM might impose a restriction which the RTOW would have to consider.

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/


text:
Should I have carb heat on for landing in a C152?
There is quite a debate about this! I'm a student, have gone solo. My first instructor insists the carb heat goes off/COLD on the approach ('ready for go-around' if needs must! And to prevent dirty unfiltered air entering on landing). My second instructor goes along with the POH and insists the carb heat stays on/HOT until landed (saying icing is more dangerous than dirt).
I LIKE the idea of keeping the carb heat on because if a go-around is needed all I have to do is remember to push in the throttle AND carb heat (and retract flaps, 30 to 20 degrees,etc.) no matter what height. I learn that ONE move. But if I'm trained to take carb heat off, say at 300', and learn only 'throttle/flaps' for go-around, I'm worried I'll FORGET carb heat's HOT if I do a go-around from 400'! See what I mean?
What's the best method for a student to learn?

The POH or checklist is typically the "bible" when it comes to operating the aircraft. Don't rely on muscle memory here, if you ever fly something different, the procedure may be different. I'd only be worried about unfiltered/dirty air entering the carb if operating out of an unimproved strip (dirt/grass).

Thank you Ron. It IS grass. Presumably that influences instructor number 1 more than number 2. I am a novice, so it's hard for me to decide, but I favour carb heat on for safety reasons. The manufacturer MUST have had a good reason to favour carb heat on, even on grass.

The approach and landing phase are the times when carburetor icing is MOST likely to occur.
Once a carburetor has ice, it may take a period of time for full application of carburetor heat to clear any ice.  Furthermore it is possible to have enough ice accumulation that application of full throttle and carburetor heat would be insufficient to melt carburetor ice, and little or no additional power would be available at go-around.
So in short, not applying carburetor heat puts you at unacceptable risk of loss of power in the event of a go-around, and potentially even in the event of the need for additional power to compensate for wind shear on approach and for glide path adjustments.
Having examined the risks of no-carb-heat on approach, we should look at the secondary consequences. The operation is contrary to the POH, and the POH is the manufacturer's best guidance for the safe operation of the plane. The practice of asking yourself, "What would the accident review board have to say about this?" is a healthy tool for evaluating decisions. To deviate from the POH, and from conventional wisdom and practice in a critical phase, where there is little recovery time, presents an unreasonable risk on your flights, and is scarcely defensible.  Without an articulable and compelling argument as to why EVERY time you make an approach and landing, the carburetor heat should be off, you are hard pressed to justify a deviation from the manufacturer's guidance.
Ok let's go to an extreme, and say that you are landing in high winds at a desert strip with blowing sand across the runway.  In a situation like that, and experienced private pilot might elect to turn off carb heat just prior to landing to prevent unfiltered air with sand from being ingested into the engine. On the other hand, if the wind is blowing that hard, the possibility of a missed approach and go-around is even higher.
There are circumstances when carb heat may be left off on an approach.  If the aircraft is equipped with a carb temp gauge, and the carb temp has been verified to be above 32F, then it is commonly considered acceptable to avoid carb heat.  Some planes equipped like that will also have a warning alert to announce temperatures which are conducive to carburetor icing. That alert is often coupled with an ice detector sensor in the carburetor. Likely your 152 has neither a carburetor temperature gauge, nor a carburetor ice annunciator.
Let's also talk training risks, since you are a student pilot. Your operations for some time will be as a single pilot, and your procedures should be designed to minimize risk. One way to accomplish that is to simplify your procedures so that they can be accomplished by rote. Having the same procedure each time, without the need to collect data and make evaluations, helps simplify your piloting chores. You are not flying complex aircraft with complex pilot chores, and you do not have the benefit of a second crewmember to make observations and read you checklists.
Most CFIs, DPEs (pilot examiners) and FAA Operations Inspectors, will expect that you follow the POH and the manufacturer's checklist and procedures. In the case of the 152, that will be to turn on carburetor heat prior to the reduction of power (in the pattern).  On balked approach, the procedure is to apply full throttle, and at most altitudes, verify mixture rich, and then remove carb heat. If the removal of carb heat causes a reduction in power (or RPMS) then carb heat is to be reapplied.
There may be other aircraft with different procedures, but you are not flying them. You are flying a 152, and it would be best practice and a defensible position to fly in accordance with the manufacturer's published procedures.
If you were taking your private pilot check ride with me, and you failed to apply carburetor heat in a C152 lacking a carburetor temperature gauge and/or ice sensor, you would not pass the check ride.
Finally, let me just add a story...on a crisp fall day, without exceptional humidity, a student/instructor were flying in the pattern doing touch and gos. The airport was surrounded on all sides by quarry, with a road leading to the flight school. That road also had the power lines to operate the stone handling and crushing quarry equipment. The plane was a new C152, the first year that they were available. It was later found that the cable had slipped in coupler on the valve for carb heat.  You know where this is going. The student was mis-aligned on her approach, and when she applied full throttle for a balked approach, insufficient power was available to establish a climb. The instructor took over, and had to weave the wings between 13.2kV three-phase power lines on each side of the road, to land the plane on the road to the flight school.
Why adopt practices which will unnecessarily test your exceptional flying skills?

Mongo, thank you. I would prefer to go with the manual, and probably will. Here in the UK I notice there are more pilots who go carb heat cold for the landing. It must be something that's got into the teaching system over the years.

@MissMoira, it depends upon the equipment, but in the case of a Cessna 152, the data is clear.  Furthermore, my understanding is that at least from a climate standpoint, in UK you are more likely to have carburetor icing than in many other parts of the world. You are to be commended because you have demonstrated one of the most important characteristics of a PIC, and that is to know your equipment, and seek out the facts in managing that equipment.  FWIW, I fly on turf fields all the time, and the risk vs the benefits of deselecting carb heat on landing are not tipped by a turf field.

If in doubt, follow the POH instructions. For example:

BEFORE LANDING
  1. Seats, Belts, Harnesses -- ADJUST and LOCK.
  2. Mixture -- RICH.
  3. Carburetor Heat -- ON (apply full heat before closing throttle).
BALKED LANDING
  1. Throttle -- FULL OPEN.
  2. Carburetor Heat -- COLD.
  3. Wing Flaps -- RETRACT to 20.
  4. Airspeed -- 55 KIAS.
  5. Wing Flaps -- RETRACT (slowly).
AFTER LANDING
  1. Wing Flaps -- UP.
  2. Carburetor Heat -- COLD.

That's very clear: carb heat on for landing, and off only after landing or when going around.
FWIW, I was originally taught (in a C152) to turn carb heat on when throttling back on downwind, and turn it off again on short final in case of a go-around. However, no other instructor I've flown with does that and I now follow the POH procedure.
Since your instructors seem to differ on this it might be a good idea to find out what your local examiner prefers before you take your final checkride. That way you can be sure to do what he expects and avoid a debate about carb heat or worse, fail the checkride.

Pondlife! Thank you. There does seem to be a difference in the approach (ha! good pun!) of some instructors. I prefer to go with the manual. And as for the examiner.... perhaps the examiner should listen to me and all these replies!

@MissMoira I'd rather say that if the examiner fails your check ride because you follow the procedures specifically laid out for the maneuver in question in the POH for the aircraft you perform the check ride in, then the onus is on the examiner to explain why they're failing you! They just might possibly have a reason for doing so, but they had better be able to explain it in light of what the POH says, whatever that is. Surely they shouldn't be failing you for, say, slowing down to below VFE before fully extending flaps, so why should carb heat during landing be different?

Thank you Michael. I've only just gone solo so am a long way from the final exam. Costs limit me to one lesson a week! But I will continue to listen in to the debate - and there IS a debate. Believe me, there are a number of pilots and instructors who swear by carb heat cold BEFORE landing. I've met them. I wonder how it all started - this decision to go against the manual? It seems be more prevalent in the UK. Why???

Your instincts are right on this and your first instructor is wrong, you should not turn off carb heat on approach for very good reasons:

Icing: on approach your engine will be on low power, with the carburetor butterfly valve mostly closed, which is when most ice will accrete on your carb surfaces. Your instructor says to close carb heat at 300 feet, that's about a minute from touchdown probably. A carb isn't going to fully ice up in a minute, but it could ice up enough to rob you of enough takeoff power that it's a problem. Consider, you are doing some pattern work, each time you turn off carb heat on approach and each time you build up a bit more ice. You do your carb heat check on each downwind leg but it doesn't get completely melted, and you might not realize it. Gradually you may build up enough ice to lose a serious amount of power, with fatal consequences
Distraction: Final approach is not the time for unnecessary steps, and turning off carb heat is unnecessary. You want to concentrate on your speed and touchdown point, not fiddling with carb heat, which will take your hand off of the throttle at a critical phase of flight. Sure, it doesn't sound like much of an action but you want to be as sterile as possible on final approach and landing

As for your instructor's view on ingesting dirty air on final, I don't know what planet the person is on but the air aloft is plenty dirty too, you aren't saving the engine much by turning off carb heat 300 feet above the ground. In any case, it's one of the reasons airplane engines have such frequent oil and filter changes. My advice would be to get a different instructor, yours seems to have some strange and possibly dangerous misconceptions.

Thank you, GdD. I've done a ton of googling and it seems more common here in the UK to be taught carb heat cold before landing. A debate rages though, with a good number on instructors defy the carb-heat-cold brigade.

I've never heard anyone telling to go carb heat cold in the UK, but your experience may vary. With cool, wet conditions that prevail over here more carb heat = better.

The chief flying instructor is a carb heat cold man. The other instructor, who I am now with, lands with carb heat on, and I am now doing so. But I have had a number of opinions come in (I keep asking) from pilots agreeing with the chief. I'd say it's about 70% carb heat hot, 30% carb heat cold. But I'm still counting! And it varies with country.

Leaving carb heat on results in a loss of power due to less dense hot air passing through
the carburetor.  I've never landed a plane at 85% power.  That is the risk of having it on for a go around.  I would check it while I was raising flaps.
The risks of carb heat off are obvious, and clearing a carburetor of ice can take over a minute.  Carb heat can be applied when plane drops out of cruise and is on lower power descent to landing.  No need to wait until you are in downwind.
As far as when to take it off, under most conditions, it's wheels down, flaps up, carb heat off,
taxi off runway, or power, flaps reduced, carb heat off for go-around.  Then in pattern, downwind, power down, flaps down, carb heat on, turn to base.
So carb heat can go with power reduction, but, under favorable conditions, in cruise too.
Don't wait until you need to climb!

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
What are these parts on Super Etendard?
I'm currently working on modelling a Super Etendard and just have a few questions on what are some small parts.
First of all, any ideas what this tube thing is on the right side of the exhaust? My best guess is a fuel dump nozzle but seems like a bit of an odd place?

Next, any ideas what this tube thing is, seems to have a hole in it so maybe some kinda sensor intake or something?

Will most likely have more questions as time goes on but would be good to know what are these things?
EDIT: Also any idea what these bits might be under the wings?

These drawings may help: 1 || 2 || 3

The two objects on the wings are the hooks for the launch bridle, which attaches the aircraft to the catapult shuttle for launching the plane from a carrier deck.

Ah ye cheers, you see them fall off after CATO :D


text:
Is there a standard place to find detailed wiring circuit and component information for different aircraft?
Today I was looking into the systems that are affected by the STDBY ATTD (#1 and #2) circuit breakers in a SR22 and I accidentally stumbled upon something that I find very interesting and I've been searching for some time now.
In the Wiring Manual (WM) chapter 91-00 I found a really big table with circuit load charts. For example: GPS 1 has a 1.12 A current drain at 28 VDC.
Now here come my questions:

Will I be able to find this information in all Wiring Manuals in chapter 91-00? According to the ATA chapter list, chapter 91 is just for charts. Do all aircraft manufactures have a circuit load chart at chapter 91-00 or is it just Cirrus?
Is there a standard place in the manuals where I can find the power requirements of each component for any plane or manufacturer? I'm interested in a manual name and a chapter preferably.

I don't really understand your questions. For the first one, are you asking if Cirrus follows the ATA chapter numbering? For the second, are you asking where you can find this information for any aircraft, or just for the SR22?

The SR22 wiring manual is p/n 13775

@Pondlife I've updated the question. I know that it follows the ATA chapter list, but at 91-00 it just says charts, doesn't say It has to have the circuit loads. I want to know if I'm looking for circuit loads should I be looking in the WM at chapter 91 or in a different manual ?

Electrical power is covered in ATA Chapter 24.  Look to subsection -50 for AC power distribution, -60 for DC power distribution, and -70 for Primary and Secondary Power.  The first two typically deal with individual loads.  The last covers the major distribution busses.


text:
Why does landing gear retract with an offset?
I've noticed this often in flight simulators, and have, to be honest, never paid attention to it in real life, though I'm quite sure it happens there too:
When landing gear retracts (and I believe when it extends as well) the two main landing gears don't move simultaneously, but one goes up (down) earlier than the other one.
Here is a video that shows this as well: Video
As a matter of fact it appears one of the flaps that open the landing gear bulk goes down faster? Doesn't that cause aerodynamic disadvantages?
There has to be a reason behind that. What reason is this?

There's no "reason" if by reason you mean deliberate human design. Perfectly functioning gears retract simultaneously. Unfortunately manufacturing (and wear-and-tear) aren't perfect. Also, to achieve perfection usually means adding weight. Since the aerodynamic disadvantage is insignificant we accept the imperfection and pass the equipment as "working". Reducing weight is of far greater importance and has far more aerodynamic advantages.

This is called sequencing. The idea is to distribute the high load on the hydraulic system due to retraction over time, so the hydraulic pumps can be smaller.
The linked video shows no such sequencing. The triple redundant hydraulic systems on airliners do not need such optimizations since there is plenty of power if all pumps are running. On top, the video was made in a hangar and the pressure source was most likely external, with enough power reserves. Any asymmetries are most likely due to differences in friction, as Jan remarks in his answer.
Since friction losses in the hydraulic lines increase with flow speed, a difference in retraction speed would quickly be equalized, since the faster moving leg needs higher flow speed in the lines leading to and from its actuator, and less pressure would be available for gear operation. Active syncing is not needed, and a small difference has little influence on flight characteristics. After all, the main gear is close to the center of gravity, so drag differences between both legs do not produce big aerodynamic moments.
When a gear retracts, it first needs to move out of the locks, which requires little hydraulic power. After this, the load gradually increases the more the leg moves up into the horizontal position. Shortly before moving into the final, retracted position the load is highest; the details depend on the gearing of the retraction mechanism. If this load needs to be covered for all three gears at the same time, the hydraulic pump on an aircraft with manual controls and hydraulics only for gear operation would need to be more than twice as large as when you sequence the retraction, so the peak loads come one after the other.

Rockwell 112 while gear retracts (picture source). Some asymmetry is clearly visible.
Technically this is solved with sequencing valves which serve several circuits. They are used both to time the gear door operation, so the doors open before the gear starts moving, as well as the sequence of the main gears.

As you can see in the video1, they don't.
At least not always. The sequence is the same for both sides and initiated at the same moment for both sides, but sometimes the down- or up-lock takes longer to release than other times, so one or the other side may get some delay. The internal friction in the mechanism may also be different on each side depending on wear of various parts of the assembly, which may add more delay to one or the other side.

1 Yes, it is the same video, just different part.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
How can I tell if a G430 or G1000 has WAAS or not?
Both the GNS430 and G1000 are/were available with and without WAAS, and I believe it's even possible to upgrade a GNS430 to add WAAS support. When I get into an unfamiliar rental aircraft, is there a quick and easy way to see if WAAS is available, by checking the avionics themselves? Is anything physically different about the units, is there some properties/status page I can check, or is there something different on the display?
Obviously asking the operator and checking the aircraft handbooks would be the right thing to do, but sometimes that doesn't work out, e.g. the FBO's instructors are all out flying and the admin people just don't know.

You're right about the upgrade - they replace the core, antenna, and possibly CDI, but the faceplate can read GNS430 even if the device itself is a GNS430W.

NOTE: as pointed out in the comments, none of these quick verification steps actually guarantees that the airplane you clambered into is certified for LPV approaches, or for IFR GPS usage at all!
On boot, a 430W will display that it's a 430W:

Aside from that, I'm sure there's a version info screen somewhere (on both G1000 and GNS430), but the best solution I can think of is to check the satellite status screen. I'm trying to find examples of a 430W displaying it, and failing, but on a G1000, you'll see this:
 (source)
If the G1000 supports WAAS, it'll display that under the 'SBAS Selection' header and you'll see satellites at the bottom numbered in the 100s - 124, 126, 129, etc - all the 100-series satellites are the WAAS augmentation satellites. The satellites augmented by WAAS will also have a "D" at the bottom of the signal strength column.

Note that just because a particular receiver has WAAS capability, it does NOT mean that the entire system/installation is certified to use it.  The only way to know that is to look at the AFM and see what it is approved for.

Interesting, I hadn't thought of that. From a Part 91 GA standpoint, what would a non-certified WAAS install look like? CDI not capable of displaying the right info?

Whether it's 91 or not, it could be in the panel but (just to make something up) maybe the antenna is not installed according to a "certified/approved" installation.  In this case, it may still work, and it may even still be accurate, but it isn't guaranteed to be under all circumstances that are evaluated during certification.  (Maybe if you fly in the rain it will quit providing data, or in icing, etc, etc.)   It could also be that a particular component is "good enough" for standard GPS but not WAAS, and while the receiver is certified for it, the installation is not.

Note also, that it should have a placard which says "VFR ONLY" if it isn't certified for IFR flight.  There is no way to know that it is "missing" (maybe it fell off, maybe it was never installed, lol) if it isn't there though unless you check the AFM.

What if your aircraft is from the 60s and has no AFM? :)

Try the POH then!  ;-)

@mins I think in general, though, if a W navigator is in the airplane, it's probably certified. OP's question was mostly (as I understood it) around 'is this piece of hardware capable of receiving SBAS'.

@egid, You're right.

For the 430: use the outer knob to scroll to the AUX group. On page 4 (setup 2) there should be an item called SBAS SELECTION. If there is, it is WAAS equipped, however, verify WAAS is ON.
Similarly, if on the NAV group you scroll to the satellites page they will display as green rather than blue. But like before, verify WAAS is ON in the 'Setup 2' page of the AUX group.


text:
What's the record for total commercial flight-hours?
Which airline pilot has the record for the highest number of total airline flight hours globally?
I found an article on Ed Long who had over 65,000 hours, but I'm only interested in airline pilots (also, most of his hours were at an altitude of under 200ft...)

@ymb1 Sure, I guess then it's whoever started the youngest and retired the latest... would still be interested in a name / number if it's possible.

@ymb1: limits are just about most commercial flights, not all.I remember seeing a documentary about a pilots flight commercial flights (freight/post) on some GB islands, single pilot flights, and as i understood, on such flight: no passengers, small aircraft, there are no limits. So the question should be clarified.

Are you asking for total flight hours for a commercial pilot or total hours flown only commercially by a pilot as I'm not sure you'd be able to find sources for this given the "shape" of most commercial pilots careers.

@SteveMatthews Total flight hours flown commercially, (carrying paying pax basically)

Related

@Cloud all commercial airline (part 121) pilots have to retire at the same age so its really about who starts the youngest.

Dunno, though I do have a friend who retired from UAL with over 35,000 logged flight hours!

Let's remember that Commercial Pilots are not the same thing as Airline Pilots. Commercial Pilots are generally not limited to flight time except as flight instructors or charter pilots, whereas Airline Pilots are limited in their Airline or charter flying. At least under FAA regulations, airline flying is more limited than charter flying. Charter pilots can fly up to 1200 hrs per year.


text:
How do you find the difference in degrees between two headings?
This may be more of a math question, but it is specific to aviation so here goes:
Given an origin heading and a destination heading (origin heading is the heading you're already flying at and destination heading is the heading that you want to turn to), what are the formulas for degrees of separation between those two headings for a left or a right turn?
So if you are heading 190 and you want to go to 020:
The left turn formula should output 170 degrees.
The right turn formula should output 190 degrees.

Figured it out.
LH turn: [origin hdg] - [destination hdg] (if less than 0, add 360)
RH turn: [destination hdg] - [origin hdg] (if less than 0, add 360)
Edit: for the acute angle between two headings you would just take the lower number between these two values.   There is no different formula.   This is alluded to in this SO post.
By the way, this is not really useful for normal pilots because you can just visualize a compass rose and figure out the different angles pretty easily but I am making a program that will make flying holding patterns a lot easier.   You input the inbound leg course (not radial), the wind (direction, velocity), your true airspeed, and whether you are making a left or right hand turn.   The program calculates what heading you should turn to on the outbound leg and the heading you should then turn to on the inbound leg (assuming standard rate turn).   It also gives you the time to fly on the outbound leg after you reach your heading for that leg.   It even takes into account turning from/to different crab angles (which would make the turns more or less than 180 degrees).

How many degrees is it when the controller tells you to turn a specific direction (left/right)? For example when heading 180°, the controller instructs "turn left heading 270°"?

@RonBeyer By the way, the controller will usually add extra words to that instruction to alleviate confusion, "turn left heading 270 long way around."

For a left hand turn it would be (180 - 270) and since that is -90, you add 360 so it's a 270 degree turn.   So at standard rate it would take 90 seconds.

BTW, when you have got the angular distance in one direction, the angle in the other direction is just 360° - angle.

In programmer logic, you'd use the Modulo operator (% in most languages)

Left-Hand Turn:   ((Origin - Destination) + 360) % 360
Right-Hand Turn: ((Destination - Origin) + 360) % 360

Example:
((190 - 20) + 360) % 360 == 170 degree turn to the left.
((20 - 190) + 360) % 360 == 190 degree turn to the right

Ha - how to confuse a non-programmer. Tell them % means something other than "per hundred"

And in PowerShell, it means "for-each", in Matlab it is a comment, In Perl it is a hash....

Right-hand Turn -
If (Dest) > (Orig)
(Dest) - (Orig) = Turn Degrees
If (Dest) <= (Orig)
(Dest) - (Orig) + 360 = Turn Degrees
Left-hand Turn -
If (Orig) > (Dest)
(Orig) - (Dest) = Turn Degrees
If (Orig) <= (Dest)
(Orig) - (Dest) + 360 = Turn Degrees
I'm interested in your final product for the holding pattern. Please do share!


text:
How are IAS to CAS conversions calculated?
How do I calculate calibrated airspeed (CAS) from indicated airspeed (IAS)? For example, how is 600 knots indicated calculated to 595 knots calibrated?

There are instrument errors in the airspeed indicator system, which consists, but is not limited to the air speed indicator, a pitot port (which senses ram air pressure) and a static port (provides ambient air pressure for airspeed and for altimeter and VSI instruments).
Because there are errors in the indicated airspeed, each manufacturer is required to measure airspeed and then provides data of indicated vs calibrated airspeed data.  This used to be a much bigger deal when flights were conducted by dead reckoning, and reliable airspeeds were more directly beneficial to the flight planning and enroute process.
Today, other instruments provide more accurate effective ground speed data.  For example, a low cost GPS can have greater accuracy in measuring effective ground speed than radar, and rivals lidar systems costing much more money.
Nevertheless, manufacturers still provide CAS / IAS tables.
Oh the instruments used to determining CAS?  Often supplemental pitot probes, which are on extended booms in front of the aircraft.
To a lesser degree GPS/IMU, radar and lidar may play a role in some testing, but these instruments do not actually measure airspeed, where as an extended boom pitot will measure ram air pressure, ideally outside any airframe and power plant perturbations.
Finally, a pilot may translate, using manufacturer provided CAS / IAS conversion tables, IAS to CAS when CAS figures are needed.  But CAS figures are not calculated, they are empirical.


text:
Does True Course, Magnetic Heading, or Magnetic Course determine cruise altitude?
Imagine I plot a course on a sectional chart. The straight line plotted reads a 345° course. The nearest isogonic line is 14° W (so +14°). Weather information calls for a wind correction of +2°. Since 345+14+2=1, my magnetic heading would then be 001°.
What course or heading am I to use for choosing my cruise altitude (considering the east/west rule)? Do I use the true course that I plotted on the sectional, the magnetic course, or the magnetic heading?

We cannot use magnetic heading because when you have a crosswind component, two planes on the same magnetic heading flying different speeds will actually be going in slightly different directions.  We don't use true because that would require calculation for pilots with a magnetic compass.

Magnetic course is to be used in determining the cruise altitude.
From 14 CFR 91.159, "VFR cruising altitude or flight level":

Except while holding in a holding pattern of 2 minutes or less, or
  while turning, each person operating an aircraft under VFR in level
  cruising flight more than 3,000 feet above the surface shall maintain
  the appropriate altitude or flight level prescribed below, unless
  otherwise authorized by ATC:
(a) When operating below 18,000 feet MSL and—
(1) On a magnetic course of zero degrees through 179 degrees, any odd
  thousand foot MSL altitude + 500 feet (such as 3,500, 5,500, or
  7,500); or
(2) On a magnetic course of 180 degrees through 359 degrees, any even
  thousand foot MSL altitude + 500 feet (such as 4,500, 6,500, or
  8,500).

The same is true for IFR flight: magnetic course determines IFR cruising altitudes. See 14 CFR 91.179, "IFR cruising altitude or flight level".
This is true under FAA regulations. ICAO regulations are similar, but reference magnetic track rather than magnetic course; for these purposes the two terms have the same meaning.

Johnathan nailed it from a regulatory standpoint but just to add a bit as to the "why". Keep in mind that your magnetic heading is only relevant to you in the aircraft. In regards to everyone else (other planes in the sky and ATC) you ground track is whats important as that is your direction of motion.
It is also important to note that magnetic heading is only true for a given set of conditions (the wind that day really). Ground track is generally constant between 2 points and thus can provide a better reference for controlling these kinds of things.

Magnetic track, or in polar areas at latitudes higher than 70 degrees
  and within such extensions to those areas as may be prescribed by the
  appropriate ATS authorities, grid tracks as determined by a network of
  lines parallel to the Greenwich Meridian superimposed on a polar
  stereographic chart in which the direction towards the North Pole is
  employed as the Grid North.

Source: ICAO Annex 2, Appendix 3

The quote is an incomplete sentence; what is the larger body of the text stating? Is it stating that magnetic track or grid track is to be used in determining cruise altitude?

Read the question first, then the answer: "Do I use the true course that I plotted on the sectional, the magnetic course, or the magnetic heading?"


text:
Why is there a pitching moment at aerodynamic center?
As far as I know, the pitching moment is an aerodynamic moment and is related to the aerodynamic center.
But I am confused with the following figure, which shows the aerodynamic force applied at the aerodynamic center. So I would think, in this case, that the center of pressure is located at the aerodynamic center which is a quarter chord. If so, why is there a moment ?

https://wright.nasa.gov/airplane/Images/ac.gif

The definition of the aerodynamic center is the following:
"the aerodynamic center is the point along the wing chord where the coefficient of aerodynamic moment is constant with respect to the AOA." It doesn't mean that it is equal to 0.
To make it simple, imagine taking a cambered wing, if you look at the center-line of the profile, it will have a changing AOA along the chord of the profile. Setting the wing at a 0° AOA will result for a positively cambered profile into a negative AOA and a negative lift near the leading edge and a positive AOA and lift near trailing edge. Thus creating an absolute torque pitching down the wing profile. The aerodynamic center is the point where the coefficient related to this torque is not impacted by the AOA.

The point you are referring to is the center of lift ($P$). It's the point where the aerodynamic torque is equal to 0. But this point location is changing with respect to the AOA. You have the following relation:
$$C_{m_F} = C_{m_P}-(x_P-x_F)\cdot C_Z \rightarrow  x_P = x_F - \frac{C_{m_F}}{C_Z}$$
Which means that for a classic wing with positive camber and thus negative torque, the center of lift is located after the aerodynamic center in cruise condition with $C_z > 0$.

It is more practical to always express the aerodynamic load at a given fixed point, the aerodynamic center with the couple (lift, torque) than expressing just the lift at the lift center which is moving with respect to flight conditions.

so can I say, the diagram I was referring to, the aerodynamic force was not really at the aerodynamic center, just that, the force is indicated there

Lift results from the pressure field around the airfoil. Any point you pick to represent it as ponctual force will be arbitrary. You can either chose the aerodynamic center, the center of lift, the leading edge or trailing edge the physics works. You juste have to modify the aerodynamic moment ascociated.


text:
Why would the runway separation for parallel triple simultaneous precision approaches be dependent on airport elevation?
Based on FAA advisory circular AC 150/5300-13A, Airport Design, when operating triple simultaneous precision instrument approaches the parallel runway separation could be reduced from 5000 feet to 4300 feet if the airport elevation is above than 1000 feet:

Triple simultaneous precision instrument approaches for airports below
  1,000 feet (305 m) elevation normally require parallel runway
  centerline separation of 5,000 feet (1524 m) between adjacent runways.
  Triple simultaneous precision instrument approaches for airport
  elevations at and above 1,000 feet (305 m) and reduction in separation
  are currently under study by the FAA. In the interim, the FAA will, on
  a case-by-case basis, consider proposals utilizing separations down to
  a minimum of 4,300 feet (1311 m) where a 5,000-foot (1524 m)
  separation is impractical or the airport elevation is at or above
  1,000 feet (305 m). Reduction of separation may require special radar,
  monitoring equipment, etc.

What is the theory behind the advice?

My guess is that since true airspeed increases as airport elevation increases, they need more space (time) in order to maintain separation if someone does something wrong.  The 1000' mark was probably arbitrary and they are now reviewing each one on a case-by-case basis to see what will actually work.

@Lnafziger But the advice is that separation reduce when sea level rise........

The way that I read it, currently 5000 feet separation is required for airports below 1000 foot elevation, and above 1000 foot elevation is not currently permitted at all. That restriction is probably in place because of what I mentioned.  The section that you quoted says that they are now considering other proposals, and being more lenient than in the past (which is a good thing)!

1000 feet seems really low to have a material effect on TAS

The 4300 ft separation is to allow wingtip vortices to dissipate from one runway to the next.  This was posted about fairly recently.
Why do simultaneous-ops parallel runways need to be so far apart?

"This was posted about fairly recently." Could you, er, be a little more specific? Posted where would be a good start. On this site? In a year's time, even that won't be enough to help people find what you're talking about.

Maybe, but not for "parallel triple simultaneous precision approaches". Then 4300 ft would be needed.


text:
Does a headwind affect the climb gradient?
When studying for my German PPL exam, I came across this question:

For those that do not speak German I'll try to translate the question, but bear with me as it is kinda picky what I'm trying to get across here:

During flight on a straight track with constant speed

headwind will increase the gradient of climb
headwind will decrease the gradient of climb
headwind will increase the distance needed to descent 50m
headwind does not affect the gradient of climb at all

As you can see answer 4 is supposed to be the correct one. I disagree, so I started searching for a reason, yet I couldn't find anything useful. Let me explain my train of thoughts:
I didn't really know the "gradient of climb", I always used the two terms "angle of climb" and "rate of climb". Thus I'm trying to figure out which one the gradient of climb is. Common sense makes me think it is the same as the angle of climb (gradient does just sound like an angle). This opinion is supported by SIDs, which have a PDG (Procedure Design Gradient) that is given in percent, just like the gradient of climb.
Assuming the gradient of climb is indeed the same as the angle of climb, the only way for the "correct" answer to be confirmed is by taking the distance traveled during the climb relative to the air, not to the ground (angle of climb is defined as the height gained divided by the horizontal distance traveled in a certain amount of time). This would mean that it is used with IAS, rather than GS, which in my opinion absolutely makes no sense ("Hey look, that mountain is 10NM away, we are climbing with 600 ft/min. and going 100 KIAS and need 3500ft more to go over the top, we're all good!" - Well, add a tailwind of 25kts, the pilot would still think he's good to go but it'd result in CFIT...).
The question I have is: How is answer 4 the correct one?

IF "constant speed" in the question means constant IAS, then answer #1 is correct IF "gradient of climb" is defined relative to the ground, but #4 is correct IF "gradient of climb" is defined as relative to the air.  If "constant speed" means constant groundspeed, then #4 is correct.  I don't know what definitions the German test is based on, but in the real world, a headwind gives you a better climb gradient & a tailwind a worse one; "gradient of climb" that's NOT related to the ground is useless until whatever correction that does relate it to the ground gets applied. I'd have answered #1.

@RalfJ my thoughts, precisely. Thus I'm confused!

I found this thread over on PPRuNe discussing the difference between climb gradient and flight path angle. It seems that under EASA "gradient" is used for aircraft performance data and is expressed with reference to the air. When used in reference to the ground for obstacle clearance they apparently prefer "flight path angle." This is apparently different from FAA usage which uses gradients for some things and angles for others.

If you climb a flight of stairs on a cruise ship traveling at 50 kts, does the speed of the cruise ship affect how steep the stairs are?

Headwind and tailwind matter. An aircraft with a 40mph stall cruising into a 50mph head wind will appear to climb vertical, like a helicopter. (This is often the case with Super Cubs in Alaska). "Assuming the gradient of climb is indeed the same as the angle of climb". I have had approaches into 35mph winds where I nearly landed vertical - taxing was another issue.

"The question I have is: How is answer 4 the correct one?" -- it's not.  Just because EASA has decided that "climb gradient" ought to be defined relative to the airmass, doesn't make that the most correct or logical definition of that term.  Consider rephrasing the question to "Is answer 4 really the correct one, a) in terms of EASA definitions and b) in terms of the most commonly accepted definition of "climb gradient"?

@TomMcW -- your comment under this question ought to be an answer.

If the attitude of the aircraft is unchanged and the angle of attack is unchanged then the gradient is unchanged.  That’s entirely intuitive if you ignore the moving planet underneath.  The question (and the ‘correct’ answer) imply that this is the correct frame of reference to use but doesn’t state it outright.

The gradient of climb is the ratio of the increase of altitude to horizontal distance through the air, not over the ground.
The definition used by the UK CAA in CAP 698 is:

Climb Gradient
The ratio, in the same units of measurement, expressed
  as a percentage, as obtained from the formula:
  - $$\text{Gradient} = \frac{\text{Change in Height}}{\text{Horizontal Distance}} \times 100 \% $$

If you have a headwind or a tailwind it makes no difference to your climb gradient because your airplane is moving relative to the air mass.
Climb gradient is not the same as rate of climb, although they are related. Rate of climb is altitude over a period of time, gradient is climb over distance travelled. There is another question which covers the difference in more detail.

You're right when the horizontal distance is measured relative to the air. As I pointed out in my question this does not make sense to me as I think it should be measured relative to the ground.

You are reading too much into it. The question is phrased in a way to try and determine whether you understand what climb gradient means. You have to understand how it is used in context, then it will make sense.

Well I thought it did. For me it is an important figure to know to determine if I can climb over an obstacle without starting to circle or not. Or if I can fly a SID which requires a certain climb gradient. If there is headwind, I will be able to do a higher climb gradient (in my understanding). Would you disagree with me on that? I can't grasp the context you're getting here, I'm sorry...

Your thinking is correct, you do need to take headwinds and tailwinds into account when calculating obstacle clearance. This article may help: https://expertaviator.com/2011/02/03/departure-procedure-climb-gradient-and-calculating-your-rate-of-climb/

I can see your confusion, but the reason gradient of climb is relative to the air is because it has to do with aircraft performance, efficiency and the possibility of inducing a stall.  The ground has nothing to do with any of this, but your motion relative to the air does.  If you'd like to have a conversation about why these are the considerations for that term, you might try hitting us up in chat: http://chat.stackexchange.com/?tab=site&host=aviation.stackexchange.com

Your stated definition does not support the part of your answer that is key to answering the OP's question, "horizontal distance through the air, not over the ground."  Do you have a source to support that part of your answer?

Thanks for pointing that out @DJohnM, cutting and pasting out of a PDF doesn't always work as expected!

So, looking at the formula which you posted from your link, the term "Horizontal Distance" needs to be properly defined in order to determine the answer.  In my mind, "Horizontal Distance" would be measured across the ground, in which case the wind would indeed change it.  It's an ambiguous term as it is now.

I admit its been nearly 20 years since I got my IFR and over 15 since I last flown, but the calculations for obstacle clearance clearly benefit from a headwind and suffer with a tailwind, hence with a headwind one can clear an obstacle sooner.

Climb Gradient IS affected by the wind component along the flight track. Rate of Climb is not. The gradient changes with the wind because wind affects your ground speed, and gradient is basically (rate of climb)/(ground speed). Rate of Climb and Ground Speed expressed in the same units, of course.

Absolutely true. An aircraft with a 50mph stall cruising into a 60mph head wind will appear to climb vertical. "Assuming the gradient of climb is indeed the same as the angle of climb". I have had approaches into 35mph winds where I nearly landed vertical - taxing was another issue.

On a lighter note, we can focus on the term "Steiggradienten".
The literal translation is "rise gradient", which could be interpreted as "rate of climb" for a given throttle setting, at a constant airspeed.
Answer 3 does deal with "Strecke" or "route or distance" traveled to sink 50 meters, but is incorrect.
When one gets away from the more widely accepted definition of gradient (rise over run) based on ground distance, then

Steiggradienten = Rate of Ascent/ Indicated Airspeed (meters/second)

This essentially is the angle to the horizon one will see for a given power and pitch setting.  Headwind will not affect this, but

headwind certainly will affect groundspeed or TAS

Items we need to clear are generally fixed points on the ground.

If you encounter a headwind in a climb for which you want to climb at a constant IAS, with the increase in airflow relative to the aircraft you will see a rise in IAS, so to pitch for that same IAS as what you were climbing at before the headwind, you will be at a steeper angle vs the horizontal of the earth. The climb performance when it comes to rate of climb will not be changed but most definitely the angle.
For best angle of climb, i.e. Vx to clear an obstacle this would be of great help to you. The head wind will lower your ground speed thus covering less ground since Vx is by definition height gain vs ground distance covered.

The change in pitch from headwind gust is only temporary.  In a steady headwind, pitch to the horizon is the same as no headwind, its the angle of ascent WRT ground that changes, ergo, rate of ascent does not change.

Wind adverseley affected to the climb gradient( weight, IAS, Large flap setting and acceleration also). As Climb gradient is a ratio of heigh to the travelled ground distance, wind affcet has a large. As  increasng altitude in steady wind condition with given IAS TAS increasing which same time decrerasing gradient. If climbing in tailwind also climb gradient is decraesing which distanve required to travell increase. With head wind climb gradient increase which decrease ground distance required to travel. Dont confuse it with Rate of Climb. Wind has no affect to ROC as roc is altitude change in unit of time.
Climb out in tailwind sometimes some pilots confuse it by setting large flap setting. But teh lage flap setting the more drag and less gradient. Best choise is (when rw is limited by lenght) use improved climb( high speed to allow creation more excess thrust)

Please use a spell checker; as this answer stands, it's very hard to read. What does this add over the other answers? The point is whether airspeed or groundspeed should be used to determine the gradient; thus answer assumes groundspeed without any reference.


text:
Why does my distance calculation not match the distance given in the definition of a danger area?
I'm looking at the definition of a danger area in an AIP section "ENR 5.1 Prohibited, restricted and danger areas", and it's the following.
From 240630N 0543000E counter clockwise along an ARC
of 5.2 NM radius centred on
240400N 0543500E to
240440N 0544040E to
240630N 0543600E to
240630N 0543000E

from this I understand that the distance between the center 240400N, 0543500E and the first point 240630N, 0543000E should be 5.2 NM, but when I calculate the distance between this two points I get 5.685 km or around 3.07 NM.
Why am I getting a different result than what's in the definition incorrectly?

The coordinates you show are given in the format of degrees, minutes and seconds, not degrees with decimals. If you enter the coordinates in the correct format, you get the desired result:

(movable-type.co.uk)
The distance of 9.645 km corresponds to 5.208 NM.

I completely missed that, thank you.

Easily missed when the format doesn't provide any clues. If it was "054.3500 E" you could expect decimal. If it was "054 35 00 E" you could reasonably expect DMS. "0543500E" is... well, you better hope you have the standards document to consult.

@hobbs You're right, that is a horrible way of writing the coordinates, especially because the usual format for coordinates in aviation (at least as printed on charts) is degrees, minutes and decimals for minutes (not seconds). I guess it comes from the original definition of a nautical mile (one arc minute of latitude).


text:
What licenses/endorsements or type ratings do you need to fly a fighter jet?
As the title says, what endorsements and licenses do I need to obtain before I can legally fly a decommissioned single seater fighter jet or trainer jet (like a L-39 Albatros or even a F22 when the time comes)
Simply assume I could afford everything the jet needs and the jet itself, I am aware that a lot of jets (mostly newer) will never see civilian pilots.
I am mostly asking for the Netherlands / EU, but I am interested in American laws as well, if there are big differences.

Without knowing in which country you want to obtain permission to fly such an aircraft it is not possible to answer.

Thank you for pointing that out @JuanJimenez I edited the question

These days, the US is very sensitive about letting warplanes -- and especially advanced ones -- get into the hands of anybody who isn't the military of a close ally. I'd be very surprised if any F-22s fly after the USAF is done with them.

I'd be suprised too if that were to ever happen so what thats concerned its a theoretical question, but a "old" military / military trainer sure is possible to get it seems

You can buy and fly something as advanced as a MIG-29 or a Harrier these days. But flying it will cost you a lot more money than buying it. If you can legally buy it, the FAA will let you fly it as long as you can find a qualified instructor to sign you off. For some types of ex-military jets, finding that instructor is the biggest catch.

In the US, the FAA's requirements for obtaining authorization to fly former ,military aircraft is included in 8900.1 Volume 5, Chapter 9, Section 2.
It is quite lengthy and covers more than just former military aircraft. As others have pointed out, most of these aircraft do not have a Type Certificate. They normally have a Special Airworthiness Certificate in the category Experimental Aircraft  Exhibition. Requirements to fly the aircraft are spelled out in the aircraft's operating limitations which are issued with the Special Airworthiness Certificate.
From 8900.1:

A.    Background. The FAA requires pilot authorizations to operate
  some aircraft in the experimental category, including some former
  military, all turbojet‑powered (for this section, all turbojet‑powered
  includes all turbofan‑powered), all rocket‑powered, and all large
  (over 12,500 pounds maximum gross takeoff weight (MGTOW)) aircraft,
  and any other aircraft requiring specific pilot skills. Examples of
  such models are the Northrop F‑5, Bell P‑63, MiG‑15, Ju‑52, Mi‑24, and
  the BD‑5J. The FAA also requires authorizations to act as PIC of large
  or turbojet‑powered aircraft undergoing type certification.
1)    The requirement for an FAA authorization to act as PIC of
  certain experimental aircraft is contained in the FAA‑issued aircraft
  operating limitations. Pilots are required to comply with the
  FAA‑issued operating limitations by 14 CFR part 91, § 91.9(a).
2)    Because these aircraft are not type certificated (TC), a type
  rating is not available. In the absence of type ratings for these
  aircraft, it is the FAA’s objective to ensure, for the pilots flying
  these aircraft, a level of safety and proficiency similar to what is
  available for an aircraft with a type rating.

The specific pilot requirements are also spelled out in the document:

A.    Former Military Turbojet/Turboshaft‑Powered Aircraft. To be
  eligible for an authorization to act as PIC of a former military
  turbojet/turboshaft‑powered aircraft, an applicant must:
1)    Possess at least a U.S. private pilot certificate with an
  appropriate category and class rating for the configuration of the
  aircraft;
2)    Hold an instrument rating;
3)    Possess at least a valid U.S. third‑class medical certificate or
  equivalent (U.S. Military Flight Medical or U.S. driver’s license in
  accordance with the FAA BasicMed process (pilots using BasicMed may
  not exceed 250 knots indicated airspeed (KIAS)));
4)    Have logged a minimum of 500 hours of pilot flight time in the
  aircraft category and have completed the U.S. armed services
  qualification checkout described in this section; or have logged a
  minimum of 1,000 hours pilot flight time, including 500 hours as PIC
  in the aircraft category, and have completed the training requirements
  of this section; and
5)    If the aircraft is capable of supersonic flight, have a minimum
  of 250 hours of pilot flight time as PIC of a fixed‑wing
  turbojet‑powered aircraft, in a Group V, VI, or VII aircraft (see
  Figure 5‑173), or present proof of completion of a U.S. military
  qualification in a supersonic turbojet‑powered aircraft.
B.    Former Military Propeller‑Driven Airplane. To be eligible to
  serve as PIC of a former military propeller‑driven airplane that has a
  MGTOW exceeding 12,500 pounds, or which has a horsepower rating of
  more than 800 horsepower and a VNE that exceeds 250 knots, an
  applicant must:
1)    Possess at least a U.S. private pilot certificate with an
  appropriate category and class rating;
2)    Possess at least a valid U.S. third‑class medical certificate or
  equivalent (U.S. Military Flight Medical or U.S. driver’s license in
  accordance with the FAA BasicMed process (pilots using BasicMed may
  not operate an aircraft with a MGTOW above 6,000 pounds));
3)    Have logged a minimum of 500 hours of pilot flight time; and
4)    Have completed the training requirements of this section.

That last item can be a challenge as it requires finding someone with the proper authorization to provide the training.
More information is available at the FAA Vintage & Experimental Aircraft Program web page.

Quite simply, you’d need a private pilot license and a type rating.
Other posted answers are overly complicated and many rules mentioned relate to the aircraft (where and how the aircraft can be flown) and not the requirements for the pilot
Further, there is no requirement to be instrument rated. Insurance of the aircraft is between you and a private company, not with the FAA.

Actually you are required to be instrument rated on the operation of a typed airplane capable of operations in Class A airspace.  You would also need a high altitude endorsement for a pressurized aircraft as well.

In the United States, under the FAA’s pilot certification rules, per Part 61, you would need a minimum of:

A Private Pilot Certificate with:

Airplane Single Engine Land or Airplane Multi Engine Land, depending on the aircraft you intended to fly.
A type rating on that airplane, if the airplane has a gross weight exceeding 12,500lbs or is turbojet powered, if the aircraft is not certificated in the experimental category.
For aircraft belonging to the experimental-exhibition category for a turbine powered surplus military aircraft, a pilot must be issued a Letter of Operation Authority (LOA) from a Flight Standards District Office (FSDO) and undergone training on either the specific airframe in question or a similar airframe from another LOA holder authorized by the FSDO to conduct said transition training.  See FAA AC 61-98 for further details.

An instrument airplane rating (if the aircraft is capable of flight in Class A airspace)
A high altitude logbook endorsement (if aircraft is pressurized and/or capable of flight at altitudes greater than FL260.)
A complex and high performance endorsement, for propeller driven fighter aircraft, should they meet the requirements of §61.31
A tailwheel endorsement, if the airplane you wish to fly has conventional landing gear per §61.31

So you don't need a high-altitude endorsement to fly an unpressurised aircraft capable of exceeding FL260?  :-P

In the US the minimum requirements for a warbird type rating are a private pilot’s license, current medical and 500 hours total time in a fixed wing aircraft. The training requirements include ground and flight training and vary depending on the aircraft. You also need to do the usual Bi-Annual Flight Review (BFR), and your insurance company will also likely impose requirements for coverage, such as currency, etc. I don't know the requirements in the EU, but they probably vary from country to country.

Do you have any sources for this? Someone in the comments and my own research haven't said anything about 500h and bfr's.

You can check the various training outfits, such as this one: http://www.easternblocaircraft.com/jet.html. Everyone has to do BFR's, that's a requirement for all US-licensed pilots.

Aside from licensing requirements, you would only (probably) get an exhibition certificate for the aircraft, which means you aren't taking it out on weekends to impress the ladies, you can only fly it to/from a specific list of shows or for training purposes.

@RonBeyer I'm not so sure. You can almost certainly get it registered as an experimental and fly it to your heart's content, as long as it fits in the traffic pattern (think noise restrictions for example).

@jwenting Ron is correct. Warbirds almost always get experimental exhibition-only airworthiness certificates with severely restricted operating limitations stating what they can be used for. The exceptions are, for example, a handful of P-51's that have standard airworthiness certificates. I'd almost kill to get one of those, if I had the money. :)

I’ve never heard of a ‘warbird type rating’ from a legal perspective.  I don’t believe the FAA has such a type rating, save for a specific kind of aircraft e.g. L-39, MiG-17, etc

@CarloFelicione https://www.faa.gov/licenses_certificates/vintage_experimental/

I see..........

In the United States:
Legally: A private pilots license, and in the case of the F-22 a multi engine rating (since it has two engines) as well as a type rating  per §61.31 since they are turbo jet aircraft. However interestingly neither of those aircraft are on the FAA's type rating list which may be an issue. There is no legal minimum amount of hours beyond those required to get the prior listed ratings.
Practically: If you want to actually fly it and get it insured... An instrument rating, a whole big chunk of hours at least some in high performance aircraft, a fair bit of multi engine time for the F-22 and prior time in type never looks bad.
Actually owning one is addressed here.


text:
What are the typical max range and max flight time (endurance) Mach numbers for the A320?
What are these speeds? Average numbers will be fine.


text:
Which agency issues private pilot certificates?
With which agency would you apply if you wanted a private pilot certificate? Is it FAA (Federal Aviation Administration), NTSB (National Transportation Safety Board), or ICAO (International Civil Aviation Organization)?

In which country?

In general, it would be a country's CAA - Civil Aviation Authority - which goes by different names in different countries. In the US, for example, the CAA is the FAA.

Here in the USA the FAA is the agency that issues all levels of Pilots Certificates. However the certificate is not simply applied for, it requires training and the passage of a written, oral, and practical exam. You can find the current requirements here.
For reference the NTSB investigates accidents (all transportation accidents for that matter)
And ICAO is a UN organization that deals with coordinating aviation related maters all over the globe.

I am guessing you're in the USA and you've undergone training and you're ready to write your exam, so the answer to your question is FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) it's the agency that issues all levels of Pilots Certificates from PPL-ATPL.

Welcome to aviation.SE! You might like to take the [tour] to find out more about how this site works.


text:
Does the rule that alcohol on flights must be served by a flight attendant also apply to private flights?
Regarding the recent incidents and fines the FAA levied it said in the following release:
"Federal law prohibits passengers from consuming alcohol aboard a flight that is not served by a flight attendant." (https://www.faa.gov/newsroom/faa-levies-161823-against-eight-passengers-alleged-alcohol-related-unruly-behavior)
Does this only apply to scheduled Airline flights or also to private flights, for example, in a jet with a seating capacity of less than 19 and hence requiring no flight attendant?

In a carrier plane drinking alcohol is not allowed except when served by the operator, regardless of the number of seats. For private aircraft there is no equivalent rule.
This is not a way to sell more alcohol at a higher price, rather a way to know how much alcohol is drunk and stop serving before aggressive or distracting behaviors develop.

1. Carriers

§ 121.575 Alcoholic beverages.

(a) No person may drink any alcoholic beverage aboard an aircraft unless the certificate holder operating the aircraft has served that beverage to him.

The actual criteria is the beverage has to be provided by the operator. This applies to all Part 121 operators. The same rule exists for Part 135.
In addition, operators should have related procedures for cabin crew members:

C. Air Carrier Procedures. Air carriers should have adequate procedures contained in crewmember manuals and training programs outlining the specific duties of crewmembers and ground personnel regarding the use and service of alcohol. For example:

Procedures to handle disturbances that may occur involving the service of alcoholic beverages;
Procedures regarding the removal of a passenger who appears to be intoxicated; and
Procedures to handle passengers who may have brought their own alcoholic beverages on board.

2. General Aviation
I was not able to find a similar restriction for Part 91. There is a restriction for carrying drunk passengers (§ 91.17.b) but this doesn't prevent them to drink alcohol when aloft, e.g. from TSB report, for a Cessna 185 accident in 2010:

It is possible the passengers’ level of intoxication contributed to their inability to
recognize the gravity of the situation and stop the interference in time for the pilot to
regain control of the aircraft before impact.

A final word from this article:

Business aircraft and charter passengers pay handsomely for their private flights, and they expect a high level  of pampering and comfort in transit. Serving them fine spirits en route forces
pilots and charter operators to carefully weigh the risks, and to determine when and how to say no more.

I'm sure that keeping track of alcohol consumption was the reason stated when the laws were passed, but I refuse to believe that airlines weren't also motivated by the profit potential of the monopoly on alcohol on their flights when they paid their lobbyists to call on the politicians.  Politics is about money more than anything else.

There were a few airlines, JetBlue being one of the most prominent, that, before the pandemic anyway, were happy to serve you your own alcohol on board for free, no profit motive there You had to hand the bottle over to the cabin crew, and they'd hold onto it and serve you, both to comply with the regulations and to be able to cut you off if necessary. Given the situation nowadays, I suspect you'll have a much harder time finding a crew willing to do this, and indeed JetBlue has more recently said they won't do this now.

@rclocher3 It's not always about money.  For example, in business class, you don't get charged extras for alcohol.  Even on long haul economy, alcohol is often included.  That said, the cheaper your ticket, the more likely you are to be charged for anything else, including alcohol.


text:
Why are some airfields not on any sectional chart nor listed in the directory?
I would have thought this was a safety issue.  Case in point - Hearst Castle Airfield.  This is located beneath William Randolph Hearst's Castle in California, located at  35°39'35.54"N  121°11'35.64"W.
It is very obviously a well maintained runway, although private;  yet is simply does not exist if you were to believe the VFR sectionals.  It did appear in older sectionals, as discussed on the forgotten airfield site (http://www.airfields-freeman.com/CA/Airfields_CA_SanLuisObispo.htm#hearst2), but now not.
If you look at skyvector (https://skyvector.com/?ll=35.658914169287556,-121.18517303105294&chart=301&zoom=1&fpl=3539N12110W), the runway should be right smack under the crosshairs inthe center, where the map is marked "ranch".  But it's not there.  How can this be allowed by the FAA?  Even secret CIA runways are listed on sectionals.
I assume that the Hearst Castle administrators requested removal of the field from the map.  Isn't this a safety issue - in the event of an in-flight emergency, this would be a perfectly good field to land on, but being unmarked, there is no way to know it is there.  How can this be?

In order to maintain a private airfield, you have to submit to inspections and regulations, some yearly. I'm guessing that the caretakers decided it wasn't worth the trouble since nothing really forbids an aircraft from landing on private property with permission, or even without in an emergency. There are a lot of perfectly good landing fields that are not marked as such, and aren't required to.

oooh...ok thanks!

It is curious that it doesn't show as a restricted airport, but it probably is at the specific request of the owners.  The airport is still owned by Hearst Corp for their private use even though the Castle and most of the ranch are now a state park.  Here's the airport info.

I flew down the coast a few months ago and noticed that the location of the airstrip is off. It is shown on the chart southeast of the actual location. There is no airstrip where Ranch San Simeon is shown on the chart.

There are lots of airfields not listed on the charts or in the directory. For what its worth there is nothing that requires private airstrips to be listed. As mentioned in the comments sometimes its not worth the hassle. As you mention in the original question it is a nice gesture to list them for other pilots in an emergency. That is covered nicely in this question. They may not have listed it because they don't want people doing touch and go's there, or landing there and knocking the door of their house or they did not want to up-keep it etc. etc.

As I mentioned above, it is charted, just in the wrong place—maybe a mile south of it’s actual location.


text:
Could an airplane dock with a set of wing extensions while airborne?
I figure there are limitations to wingspan while on the ground but could we engineer wings that stay aloft or get towed to allow a plane to 'dock' with them in order to fly higher/longer/more efficiently?

In such a case why not fold them?

Interesting question. Rather than docking with wings, I wonder if researchers have given any thought to linking lightweight aircraft together for atmospheric research. Helios is a NASA aircraft that would seem to be a likely candidate.  https://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/history/pastprojects/Helios/index.html Lots of smaller aircraft linked together and the payload launched by a conventional aircraft and then attached to the group.

@mins, well I remember a couple of F-8s Crusaders' pilots managed to take off with the wings folded without accidents... :-)

Seems backwards to me.  Wouldn't you want the larger wingspan on takeoff & landing, but not for high-speed cruise?  As with variable-geometry fighter aircraft?  Or the B-70's wingtips that drooped in high-speed flight?

There are many more restrictions to wing span on the ground than in flight.

@Joe: But my question is why you'd want longer wings in flight.  Other than specialized applications like sailplanes.

@jamesqf: Being able to increase your aspect ratio in flight could lead to enhanced subsonic cruise efficiency.  For the two applications I've heard it considered for (high altitude recon aircraft and long-range bombing), that was of great interest.

Actually, a similar concept was tested by the USAF in the 50s (like most things in aviation, it seems).  Under the name of Project Tom Tom, the military was looking into the possibility of coupling a parasite fighter (an F-84 in this instance) to a B-36 as a long-distance escort as it flew into the Soviet Union by joining the two aircraft together at the wingtips.  Flying as such, the F-84 would actually power down its engines during coupled flight and could receive fuel from the B-36.  However, the aspect with greater relevance to the question is that the B-36 would actually derive an aerodynamic benefit from this arrangment as well.  In theory, the combined aircraft would also benefit from having an artificially elongated wing as well, and, while I remember reading last year that this actually did result in superior fuel efficiency for the combined aircraft during cruise, I am at a loss to find that source right now.  At any rate, with respect to this question, the B-36 effectively docked with a pair of "wing extensions" (in this case, a pair of F-84s) while in flight and derived a benefit in cruise.  A video of the concept can be found here:

.  Also, more reading can be found in this text Flying Aircraft Carriers of the USAF: Wing Tip Coupling by Brian Lockett.
Naturally, there were significant downsides to this idea.  While the F-84 actually did manage to engage the coupling mechanism on the B-36 on test flights, logging at least a couple hours of continuous, coupled flight, significant stability and safety issues were uncovered during testing that led to the scrapping of the project.  As noted in a quote from the project summary report:

The wing-tip coupling mechanism as developed and flight tested in the Tom-Tom program is not considered satisfactory for tactical use and was barely acceptable for test flying. It appeared that a new difficulty and a now shortcoming were uncovered on virtually every test flight. The extent of rework necessary before the coupling mechanisms as designed were acceptable as flight test articles is covered under the DESIGN section of this report.

Similarly, issues with aeroelasticity turned out to be a much larger issue than originally expected (in part because of the change pitching/heaving forces as well as wing mass distribution and stiffness at the joint).  I think that Aurora Flight Sciences ran into similar issues when they were designing an entry for DARPA's Vulture project...the idea was to join multiple vehicles (that were essentially flying wings) to create a super-efficient, high-altitude, solar-powered, surveillance aircraft.  Due to conflicting requirements on wing structure and aircraft weight, I think that ultimately didn't fly...but I don't have any of the details for that.  Just what I remember from a presentation I saw many years ago.
At any rate, I guess that my answer is: yes, it could.  But it is VERY difficult and dangerous to do (at present).

The question did ask about docking wing extensions to an aircraft while in flight, which this could be considered as a method to do so and illustrates the challenges thereof.  In fact, that was one of the motivation for the specific docking methodology used in Project Tom Tom.  In both projects mentioned, the wing extension would need to be a controllable vehicle (for the docking concept), making this answer applicable, I'd think.  I did not post this to illustrate an efficient solution (if there is one) but to illustrate the difficulties and attempts at doing what the questioner desired.

Oh ok -- that makes sense.  But I think we're looking at this from different angles.  I'd hoped to express that the B-36 is the aircraft that docks with the wing extensions (e.g., the F-84s) and thereby benefits from increased wing area, higher aspect ratio, etc. (being a practical example of previous attempts related to the OP's question), and not the benefits conferred to the F-84s.  It is the B-36, after all, that gets the efficiency bonus by gaining the wing extensions and flies the whole trip.  I could make that more clear in an edit.

Why dock in flight? It would be simpler to use telescopic wings, like the fs-29 did. It had a fixed center wing and moveable outer wing gloves which could slide in and out. Wingspan could be varied between 13.3 and 19m this way. The idea was to reduce wing area and drag for fast flight between thermals and extend the wing for slow flight when gaining height in thermals.

Three-side view of the fs-29 (picture source)

fs-29 in flight with wings extended (picture source). Note the slightly longer chord of the outer wing panels.
The pilot had to move a lever in the cockpit repeatedly back and forth to move the wing. The concept worked well in theory, but hit a snag in practical life: When moving in, air had to be pressed from the outer wing which would impede fast movement. Much worse, however, was that on the way outward the wing would need to be filled with air and would suck itself stuck on the inner wing. The resulting increase in friction made pilots leave the wing at 17 m span for the rest of the flight after having "pumped" it in and out two or three times.
This experience made Schempp-Hirth abandon their half-built prototype of a glider with a telescopic wing. Somehow, nobody thought of adding winglets with rudders which would had made it trivial to create the side force necessary to move the wing gloves.

The refueling is when I though it would take place. I originally thought this would be a neat idea to have an F-35 or F-22 dock into wing extensions to be able to do missions the U2 used to perform. I agree though, this is a dynamic and complex engineering task with a lot to consider.

I suppose you could attempt to design a system that could be towed to altitude by another plane and then the special aircraft could dock with it using procedures similar to in-flight refueling.
Now the question I don't think you asked but should be addressed is whether this would be feasible. I would expect that it isn't for several reasons:

Attaching to a moving object while in flight is not easy task. It would require special training by both the pilot of the base aircraft and the operator of the tow mechanism.
Adding a complex system to attach the wing extensions would add weight and cost to the specially designed aircraft
Attaching wing extensions to the base aircraft would change the flight characteristics of the aircraft while in flight, which could prove costly and difficult/impossible for safety certification
Adding wing extensions wouldn't necessarily increase flight ceiling/range/efficiency. You would have to perform the necessary analysis to show that the improvement in flight capabilities are greater than the added weight and cost.

Not sure why the downvote, is there something I can do to improve this answer?


text:
Would diesel (Jet A) cause less pollution than other fuels?
Has any research been done on pollution from a aircraft using diesel (Jet A) vs other standard aircraft fuels? Is there a push to use diesel fuels in GA as a viable alternative and if so why or why not? (Ignoring the consideration of the non-availability of Jet A at most GA airports.) Would diesel-powered GA aircraft be considered the "future of green GA flying" or are other technologies such as electric propulsion more likely?

Yes, there has been a "push" to move GA aircraft to diesel powerplants, and some aircraft are equipped with it. There is also a "push" to develop an alternative to 100LL, moving to a completely lead-free fuel.

Welcome to aviation.SE! There are quite a lot of questions on this site already about fuel types, electric engines, batteries, solar power etc. that you might want to check out. This one in particular is basically the same as your question and it was closed because it's simply too speculative. (And as an aside, outside North America it's often a lot easier to find Jet A than avgas.)

Are you asking about diesel type fuels, or diesel cycle reciprocating engines? Turbines generally burn fuel more completely since they run lean, whereas many gasoline engines are run rich with less complete combustion. Many GA aircraft are turbine equipped anyway.

Jet A is not diesel.  Jet A is kerosene.  Diesel is heavier than kerosene.

This is a good question which does not have an entirely straightforward answer as the different types of pollution produced and their effects on the environment are still being studied. Also, I know of no actual studies of aero diesel versus avgas versus unleaded avgas pollution in different types of aero engines to base a conclusion off of. I will draw some parallels with auto engines and fuels as they are similar in many ways.
Comparing the efficiency and pollution of a modern aero-diesel engine to the archaic avgas engine technology in most light airplanes is not really a fair comparison because modern aero-diesel engines have computerized electronic fuel injection, and often computerized variable pitch propellers which combine to create the best efficiency for the phase of flight. Old engine technology has no electronically controlled fuel injection (often no fuel injection at all), and often they don't have the gauges installed to inform the pilot how best to lean the engine. A better comparison would be a modern aero-diesel to a modern avgas engine with similar levels of technology, that's something I'd like to see.
There are many different types of pollution, and the different types of engines produce differing amounts. I will list the major types:

CO2: If you look at it from a CO2 perspective then auto diesels are less polluting than auto gasoline engines, which is why in many places across the world people have been moving to diesel. Governments (many in Europe) have in some cases taxes diesel less to make it more attractive. Whether aero-diesel engines produce less CO2 than a comparable technology avgas engines is not certain, as I said I've seen no actual data. Aero-diesel engines are heavier than avgas engines because they are partly made of steel, but they don't need magnetos which saves some weight, but then they are turbocharged which takes weight. Looking at the auto comparison I'd say aero diesels are probably better on CO2
NOx compounds: Nitrogen oxides are linked to asthma and breathing disorders, and diesel engines produce more of these than gasoline engines
Sulphur compounds: These are also linked to asthma and breathing disorders. Jet fuel has higher sulphur content than diesel fuel, and much higher than gasoline/avgas. Sulphur compounds may actually be helping to cool the planet though, as they help form clouds (acidic clouds) which reflect sunlight back into space
Fine Particulate Matter (FPM): particulates are a biggie from an environmental and health perspective these days. Particulates are linked to asthma and breathing disorders, and there is some evidence that black carbon particulates are heating the planet and causing glacier melt at an accelerated rate as they absorb heat. Diesels produce much more particulates than gasoline engines do

There is growing scientific evidence that the health and environmental costs of particulates, nitrogens and sulphur compounds of diesel outweigh the benefits of lower CO2 levels. I know in the UK the government is thinking about a U-turn on their stance on diesels, and many people are looking at going back to gasoline engines.
The biggest polluter with avgas is the lead though, in the form of Tetra Ethyl Lead (TEL) which is extremely toxic and very expensive to deal with. Unfortunately, without the lead avgas engines can rip themselves apart because of detonation at high density altitudes. This is an edge case to be honest, most light aircraft will never be in that situation, but it is potentially deadly in enough cases that you can't just get the lead out (pun intended). The lead makes avgas much more expensive than Jet fuel, which is one of the drivers behind aero-diesel; it's cost, not environmental benefits which make it attractive.

Regarding CO2, diesels are definitely better, because they have lower consumption and the carbon content by weight is almost the same in both fuels(~0.5% more for diesel fuel, but the consumption is ~30% lower). And vast majority of the carbon ends up as CO2.

“Governments (many in Europe) have in some cases taxes diesel less to make it more attractive.”: No longer true. The approved highway toll in Germany is going to be higher for diesel compared to similarly old gasoline engine.

Exactly my point @JanHudec, towards the end of my response I state just that.

Thanks for the great detailed responses!   But is it safe to say that there is fundamentally no molecular difference in auto diesel vs aero-diesl so you should be able to point to parallels in discharge in byproducts characteristics barring the apples to apples study you indicated would be needed.  Also as Jane commented I understand Europe is doing a complete about-face on diesel as they have found out that this diesel  tax incentive is actually having the reverse effects on what it was intended for in reducing pollutants and greenhouse effect by promoting more diesels on the road.

There is a difference between auto diesel and aero diesel (jet fuel). Here's a good question about it. http://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/12184/what-are-the-differences-between-fuel-types-comparing-with-vehicles/12188

Thanks GdD! I had read this artificial before posting my question, thus my comment about no Molecular difference only purity obtained during refining. Thus would this purity of Jet-A make if more non-polluting, my assumption would be no to any marginal difference. Also, Autos have filters to filter out diesel particulates which I presume aircraft don't have.

Autos don't have to filter particulates @DanL, if they did it wouldn't be so much of an issue. Jet fuel tends to have more sulphur than diesel, especially the ultra low sulphur diesel sold in Europe.


text:
What criteria are used for exiting an airplane in an emergency?
I often see after a crash that people die unable to exit the aircraft. The news reports and passenger and safety organizations criticize the FAA for not having realistic emergency exit regulations. What determines the criteria for a plane being "safe" in an emergency?

Is that really something you often see nowadays? I can think of AF358, OZ214 and EK 521 as the most recent major examples of how an aircraft can crash and yet have all the survivors evacuate safely.

San Francisco - Asiana Flight 214 (2013) Boeing 777, the FAA was heavily criticized for evacuation standards https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asiana_Airlines_Flight_214

Per 14 CFR 25.803:

For airplanes having a seating capacity of more than 44 passengers, it
  must be shown that the maximum seating capacity, including the number
  of crewmembers required by the operating rules for which certification
  is requested, can be evacuated from the airplane to the ground under
  simulated emergency conditions within 90 seconds

Appendix J to Part 25 specifies exactly how the evacuation tests should be done. It's too long to quote here, but it includes requirements for lighting levels, number of passengers, minor obstacles, infants on board etc.
I have no idea whether or not those simulated conditions are reasonable and effective, but they at least set a standard.

I believe there were some questions here on the site about those evacuation certification tests, and the general theme was, yes, they are somewhat unrealistic, but they have to maintain a delicate balance between realism on one hand, and fairness, repeatability, and safety (e.g. on the A380 test, one volunteer broke his arm) on the other hand.

@Jorg - When I read the answer (Appendix J to Part 25), non working exits where not picked randomly, the aircraft is level, no smoke, and the mfg is allowed to have stairs for the wings. 3 infants. no children, and no injured, 1/2 the carry on baggage. Now I understand why people die!

@jwzumwalt: It's impossible to predict exactly how long passengers will have to exit a plane in future emergencies.  In general, however, if plane #1 takes 85 seconds to evacuate everyone under test conditions and plane #2 takes 95 seconds, that would suggest that under emergency conditions, passengers would likely be able to exit plane #1 faster than plane #2.  The time to exit under test conditions should be viewed as a ranking criterion, rather than having any particular numerical relationship to the time required to exit in an emergency.

@supercat - The problem is there have been a multitude of aviation accidents that have shown the emergency criteria used is unrealistic to actual emergencies. Even when an aircraft is exited without damage and all exits working such as US Airways Flight 1549 on the Hudson, the exit time was several times more than 90secs and 5 seriously injured passengers had to be accommodated.

@jwzumwalt: The time it took to get all passengers off the plane was greater than 90 seconds, but the time available to get all passengers off the plane before it sank was also greater than 90 seconds.

@JörgWMittag: They could still include things like randomly-jammed exits, an aircraft tilted on jacks, seats loose from their mounts and tilting across the aisles, baggage strewn all over, artificial smoke generators, dim/no lighting, fear-inducing sounds, etc., etc., etc....

@Sean: They do. As per certification requirements, half the exit doors are blocked, the cabin is dark and filled with artificial smoke (impairing visibility, but not breathing), and there are obstacles placed randomly in the aisles. There are rules for the number of (simulated) infants on board, etc. The full list of regulations is linked in the answer.


text:
How can I troubleshoot an intercom interference issue in a Piper PA-28?
Our Piper PA28-181 doesn't want to let us communicate via its own intercom panel in the dashboard. We connect via the pilot port and an "Intercom SL300". When connected there is a annoying sound on the phones, it seems to be the strobe or ignition (going to test it).
My questions:

Where would I get information regarding the intercom/audio wiring in old and small airplanes?
Is it possible to install a suppression capacitor?

Basic question: does the sound go away when you use squelch?

For the wiring, you need to do several things. First, obtain the Vendor's manual for the SL 300. Next you will need to trace out the wires going to the SL 300. I suggest labeling them.
This type of work is beyond normal pilot/owner maintenance, and I would urge you to work with your A&P or avionics shop tech to get support while you debug things, and also to provide guidance as you navigate the wires, controls, etc. that might need some displacement while you work on things.
A suppression capacitor can be installed, but I would identify the problem first. Again, the avionics tech should be consulted, and any filter you install will need to be documented, and "signed off" but you probably already know this as you own the plane.
Give a better description of the sound, or a recording, and you might get better ideas on where to look.


text:
What types of data can be extracted from a non-motion flight simulator?
What are the types of data that can be extracted from a non-motion flight simulator?
Based on the type of data I want to do:

A comparison study between flight simulator data and ground-based systems data
To know if it's possible to calculate the fuel consumed by an aircraft while following certain ATC procedures, so that further improvements in fuel consumption can be explored by altering those procedures

It will depend on the representativeness of the modeling.
If your fuel system model, your engine model, and your aero model are representative of the aircraft, whatever is the qualification of the simulator, you will have good results. However, it will never be as accurate as the aircraft because of the unprecision of the modelisation and the fact that we are not able to modelise the thermodynamic part of the engine. We are using tables to get that and it creates a lot of inconsistency.
For example, if you try to look at the engine consumption in cruise it will be pretty accurate, but during acceleration phases, it will not be accurate at all due to the inconsistencies.
A simulator qualified as FNPT II + MCC under EASA or Level 5 under FAA should have the same representativeness as a Full Flight Simulator Level D for all the models talked above. So it will give you a good idea, but will never be accurate. However, it is still the best you can have from a simulation.

You could as well add that comparatively simulations will still give significant results even if the values are not 100% accurate.

That was my first and last point. You will have good results but not 100% accurate. The acceptability of it is not my responsibility.

maybe i was expecting to see it written separately, because the OP may miss it as I did. ;)

Oh ok. I didn't though about that.

Both motion or no motion platforms - the basic simulation is nearly identical - except that (being a little more on the expensive side) motion simulators (or better said: the internal systems of the airplane) might be programmed.
1) nearly all simulators are ground based, so I do not understand what you want to say.
2) surely - just run the simulation (manned or via some automatic systems) with different parameters (in this case from ATC procedures) and collect the data...

Welcome to aviation.SE!

ground based systems in the sense that I'll be comparing with the surveillance systems data and also using ATC modelling and simulation tool.


text:
What is this Airbus A320 passager seat part?
I'm on a Airbus A320 anyone have any idea what the black part on the back of the passager seat is used for?

I’m not entirely certain and don’t have time to write a complete answer but I suspect that it may be a card reader for in-flight purchases.

That’s a credit card reader so a passenger can purchase either premium food products or spirits or inflight entertainment items.

In an A320? Wow. I wouldn't expect such a thing in an aircraft that isn't usually used for long-haul connections. If I didn't know that Ryanair only uses B737's I'd bet this was another "invention" of Mr. O'Leary.

Yeah, it looks to be a bog standard magstripe reader, no different than the ones that are commonly used for magstripe access cards, library cards, etc on terra firma

Virgin America used to have a similar system (the card reader is harder to see, at the bottom), but Alaska removed it when they bought the airline. Remember that A320 flights can be up to ~7 hours long, so there's demand for entertainment options, though airlines are largely moving to streaming to customer-provided devices now.

The card reader looks pretty useless if no display is installed.